The following is mirrored from its source at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/industry.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEXT Industrial Revolution
by William McDonough and Michael Braungart
October 1998
The Atlantic
"Eco-efficiency," the current industrial buzzword, will neither
save the environment nor foster ingenuity and productivity, the
authors say. They propose a new approach that aims to solve rather
than alleviate the problems that industry makes
In the spring of 1912 one of the largest moving objects ever
created by human beings left Southampton and began gliding toward
New York. It was the epitome of its industrial age -- a potent
representation of technology, prosperity, luxury, and progress. It
weighed 66,000 tons. Its steel hull stretched the length of four
city blocks. Each of its steam engines was the size of a
townhouse. And it was headed for a disastrous encounter with the
natural world.
This vessel, of course, was the Titanic -- a brute of a ship,
seemingly impervious to the details of nature. In the minds of the
captain, the crew, and many of the passengers, nothing could sink
it.
One might say that the infrastructure created by the Industrial
Revolution of the nineteenth century resembles such a steamship.
It is powered by fossil fuels, nuclear reactors, and chemicals. It
is pouring waste into the water and smoke into the sky. It is
attempting to work by its own rules, contrary to those of the
natural world. And although it may seem invincible, its
fundamental design flaws presage disaster. Yet many people still
believe that with a few minor alterations, this infrastructure can
take us safely and prosperously into the future.
During the Industrial Revolution resources seemed inexhaustible
and nature was viewed as something to be tamed and civilized.
Recently, however, some leading industrialists have begun to
realize that traditional ways of doing things may not be
sustainable over the long term. "What we thought was boundless has
limits," Robert Shapiro, the chairman and chief executive officer
of Monsanto, said in a 1997 interview, "and we're beginning to hit
them."
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, led by the Canadian
businessman Maurice Strong, recognized those limits. Approximately
30,000 people from around the world, including more than a hundred
world leaders and representatives of 167 countries, gathered in
Rio de Janeiro to respond to troubling symptoms of environmental
decline. Although there was sharp disappointment afterward that no
binding agreement had been reached at the summit, many industrial
participants touted a particular strategy: eco-efficiency. The
machines of industry would be refitted with cleaner, faster,
quieter engines. Prosperity would remain unobstructed, and
economic and organizational structures would remain intact. The
hope was that eco-efficiency would transform human industry from a
system that takes, makes, and wastes into one that integrates
economic, environmental, and ethical concerns. Eco-efficiency is
now considered by industries across the globe to be the strategy
of choice for change.
What is eco-efficiency?
Primarily, the term means "doing more with less" -- a precept that
has its roots in early industrialization. Henry Ford was adamant
about lean and clean operating policies; he saved his company
money by recycling and reusing materials, reduced the use of
natural resources, minimized packaging, and set new standards with
his timesaving assembly line. Ford wrote in 1926, "You must get
the most out of the power, out of the material, and out of the
time" -- a credo that could hang today on the wall of any
eco-efficient factory. The linkage of efficiency with sustaining
the environment was perhaps most famously articulated in Our
Common Future, a report published in 1987 by the United Nations'
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future
warned that if pollution control were not intensified, property
and ecosystems would be threatened, and existence would become
unpleasant and even harmful to human health in some cities.
"Industries and industrial operations should be encouraged that
are more efficient in terms of resource use, that generate less
pollution and waste, that are based on the use of renewable rather
than non-renewable resources, and that minimize irreversible
adverse impacts on human health and the environment," the
commission stated in its agenda for change.
The term "eco-efficiency" was promoted five years later, by the
Business Council (now the World Business Council) for Sustainable
Development, a group of forty-eight industrial sponsors including
Dow, Du Pont, Con Agra, and Chevron, who brought a business
perspective to the Earth Summit. The council presented its call
for change in practical terms, focusing on what businesses had to
gain from a new ecological awareness rather than on what the
environment had to lose if industry continued in current patterns.
In Changing Course, a report released just before the summit, the
group's founder, Stephan Schmidheiny, stressed the importance of
eco-efficiency for all companies that aimed to be competitive,
sustainable, and successful over the long term. In 1996
Schmidheiny said, "I predict that within a decade it is going to
be next to impossible for a business to be competitive without
also being `eco-efficient' -- adding more value to a good or
service while using fewer resources and releasing less pollution."
As Schmidheiny predicted, eco-efficiency has been working its way
into industry with extraordinary success. The corporations
committing themselves to it continue to increase in number, and
include such big names as Monsanto, 3M, and Johnson & Johnson. Its
famous three Rs -- reduce, reuse, recycle -- are steadily gaining
popularity in the home as well as the workplace. The trend stems
in part from eco-efficiency's economic benefits, which can be
considerable: 3M, for example, has saved more than $750 million
through pollution-prevention projects, and other companies, too,
claim to be realizing big savings. Naturally, reducing resource
consumption, energy use, emissions, and wastes has implications
for the environment as well. When one hears that Du Pont has cut
its emissions of airborne cancer-causing chemicals by almost 75
percent since 1987, one can't help feeling more secure. This is
another benefit of eco-efficiency: it diminishes guilt and fear.
By subscribing to eco-efficiency, people and industries can be
less "bad" and less fearful about the future. Or can they?
Eco-efficiency is an outwardly admirable and certainly
well-intended concept, but, unfortunately, it is not a strategy
for success over the long term, because it does not reach deep
enough. It works within the same system that caused the problem in
the first place, slowing it down with moral proscriptions and
punitive demands. It presents little more than an illusion of
change. Relying on eco-efficiency to save the environment will in
fact achieve the opposite -- it will let industry finish off
everything quietly, persistently, and completely.
We are forwarding a reshaping of human industry -- what we and the
author Paul Hawken call the Next Industrial Revolution. Leaders of
this movement include many people in diverse fields, among them
commerce, politics, the humanities, science, engineering, and
education. Especially notable are the businessman Ray Anderson;
the philanthropist Teresa Heinz; the Chattanooga city councilman
Dave Crockett; the physicist Amory Lovins; the
environmental-studies professor David W. Orr; the
environmentalists Sarah Severn, Dianne Dillon Ridgley, and Susan
Lyons; the environmental product developer Heidi Holt; the
ecological designer John Todd; and the writer Nancy Jack Todd. We
are focused here on a new way of designing industrial production.
As an architect and industrial designer and a chemist who have
worked with both commercial and ecological systems, we see
conflict between industry and the environment as a design problem
-- a very big design problem.
A Retroactive Design
MANY of the basic intentions behind the Industrial Revolution were
good ones, which most of us would probably like to see carried out
today: to bring more goods and services to larger numbers of
people, to raise standards of living, and to give people more
choice and opportunity, among others. But there were crucial
omissions. Perpetuating the diversity and vitality of forests,
rivers, oceans, air, soil, and animals was not part of the agenda.
If someone were to present the Industrial Revolution as a
retroactive design assignment, it might sound like this:
Design a system of production that
* puts billions of pounds of toxic material into the air,
water, and soil every year
* measures prosperity by activity, not legacy
* requires thousands of complex regulations to keep people and
natural systems from being poisoned too quickly
* produces materials so dangerous that they will require
constant vigilance from future generations
* results in gigantic amounts of waste
* puts valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where
they can never be retrieved
* erodes the diversity of biological species and cultural
practices
Eco-efficiency instead
* releases fewer pounds of toxic material into the air, water,
and soil every year
* measures prosperity by less activity
* meets or exceeds the stipulations of thousands of complex
regulations that aim to keep people and natural systems from
being poisoned too quickly
* produces fewer dangerous materials that will require constant
vigilance from future generations
* results in smaller amounts of waste
* puts fewer valuable materials in holes all over the planet,
where they can never be retrieved
* standardizes and homogenizes biological species and cultural
practices
Plainly put, eco-efficiency aspires to make the old, destructive
system less so. But its goals, however admirable, are fatally
limited.
Reduction, reuse, and recycling slow down the rates of
contamination and depletion but do not stop these processes. Much
recycling, for instance, is what we call "downcycling," because it
reduces the quality of a material over time. When plastic other
than that found in such products as soda and water bottles is
recycled, it is often mixed with different plastics to produce a
hybrid of lower quality, which is then molded into something
amorphous and cheap, such as park benches or speed bumps. The
original high-quality material is not retrieved, and it eventually
ends up in landfills or incinerators.
The well-intended, creative use of recycled materials for new
products can be misguided. For example, people may feel that they
are making an ecologically sound choice by buying and wearing
clothing made of fibers from recycled plastic bottles. But the
fibers from plastic bottles were not specifically designed to be
next to human skin. Blindly adopting superficial "environmental"
approaches without fully understanding their effects can be no
better than doing nothing.
Recycling is more expensive for communities than it needs to be,
partly because traditional recycling tries to force materials into
more lifetimes than they were designed for -- a complicated and
messy conversion, and one that itself expends energy and
resources. Very few objects of modern consumption were designed
with recycling in mind. If the process is truly to save money and
materials, products must be designed from the very beginning to be
recycled or even "upcycled" -- a term we use to describe the
return to industrial systems of materials with improved, rather
than degraded, quality.
The reduction of potentially harmful emissions and wastes is
another goal of eco-efficiency. But current studies are beginning
to raise concern that even tiny amounts of dangerous emissions can
have disastrous effects on biological systems over time. This is a
particular concern in the case of endocrine disrupters --
industrial chemicals in a variety of modern plastics and consumer
goods which appear to mimic hormones and connect with receptors in
human beings and other organisms. Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski,
and John Peterson Myers, the authors of Our Stolen Future (1996),
a groundbreaking study on certain synthetic chemicals and the
environment, assert that "astoundingly small quantities of these
hormonally active compounds can wreak all manner of biological
havoc, particularly in those exposed in the womb."
On another front, new research on particulates -- microscopic
particles released during incineration and combustion processes,
such as those in power plants and automobiles -- shows that they
can lodge in and damage the lungs, especially in children and the
elderly. A 1995 Harvard study found that as many as 100,000 people
die annually as a result of these tiny particles. Although
regulations for smaller particles are in place, implementation
does not have to begin until 2005. Real change would be not
regulating the release of particles but attempting to eliminate
dangerous emissions altogether -- by design.
Applying Nature's Cycles to Industry
PRODUCE more with less," "Minimize waste," "Reduce," and similar
dictates advance the notion of a world of limits -- one whose
carrying capacity is strained by burgeoning populations and
exploding production and consumption. Eco-efficiency tells us to
restrict industry and curtail growth -- to try to limit the
creativity and productiveness of humankind. But the idea that the
natural world is inevitably destroyed by human industry, or that
excessive demand for goods and services causes environmental ills,
is a simplification. Nature -- highly industrious, astonishingly
productive and creative, even "wasteful" -- is not efficient but
effective.
Consider the cherry tree. It makes thousands of blossoms just so
that another tree might germinate, take root, and grow. Who would
notice piles of cherry blossoms littering the ground in the spring
and think, "How inefficient and wasteful"? The tree's abundance is
useful and safe. After falling to the ground, the blossoms return
to the soil and become nutrients for the surrounding environment.
Every last particle contributes in some way to the health of a
thriving ecosystem. "Waste equals food" -- the first principle of
the Next Industrial Revolution.
The cherry tree is just one example of nature's industry, which
operates according to cycles of nutrients and metabolisms. This
cyclical system is powered by the sun and constantly adapts to
local circumstances. Waste that stays waste does not exist.
Human industry, on the other hand, is severely limited. It follows
a one-way, linear, cradle-to-grave manufacturing line in which
things are created and eventually discarded, usually in an
incinerator or a landfill. Unlike the waste from nature's work,
the waste from human industry is not "food" at all. In fact, it is
often poison. Thus the two conflicting systems: a pile of cherry
blossoms and a heap of toxic junk in a landfill.
But there is an alternative -- one that will allow both business
and nature to be fecund and productive. This alternative is what
we call "eco-effectiveness." Our concept of eco-effectiveness
leads to human industry that is regenerative rather than
depletive. It involves the design of things that celebrate
interdependence with other living systems. From an
industrial-design perspective, it means products that work within
cradle-to-cradle life cycles rather than cradle-to-grave ones.
Waste Equals Food
ANCIENT nomadic cultures tended to leave organic wastes behind,
restoring nutrients to the soil and the surrounding environment.
Modern, settled societies simply want to get rid of waste as
quickly as possible. The potential nutrients in organic waste are
lost when they are disposed of in landfills, where they cannot be
used to rebuild soil; depositing synthetic materials and chemicals
in natural systems strains the environment. The ability of
complex, interdependent natural ecosystems to absorb such foreign
material is limited if not nonexistent. Nature cannot do anything
with the stuff by design: many manufactured products are intended
not to break down under natural conditions.
If people are to prosper within the natural world, all the
products and materials manufactured by industry must after each
useful life provide nourishment for something new. Since many of
the things people make are not natural, they are not safe "food"
for biological systems. Products composed of materials that do not
biodegrade should be designed as technical nutrients that
continually circulate within closed-loop industrial cycles -- the
technical metabolism.
In order for these two metabolisms to remain healthy, great care
must be taken to avoid cross-contamination. Things that go into
the biological metabolism should not contain mutagens,
carcinogens, heavy metals, endocrine disrupters, persistent toxic
substances, or bio-accumulative substances. Things that go into
the technical metabolism should be kept well apart from the
biological metabolism.
If the things people make are to be safely channeled into one or
the other of these metabolisms, then products can be considered to
contain two kinds of materials: biological nutrients and technical
nutrients.
Biological nutrients will be designed to return to the organic
cycle -- to be literally consumed by microorganisms and other
creatures in the soil. Most packaging (which makes up about 50
percent by volume of the solid-waste stream) should be composed of
biological nutrients -- materials that can be tossed onto the
ground or the compost heap to biodegrade. There is no need for
shampoo bottles, toothpaste tubes, yogurt cartons, juice
containers, and other packaging to last decades (or even
centuries) longer than what came inside them.
Technical nutrients will be designed to go back into the technical
cycle. Right now anyone can dump an old television into a trash
can. But the average television is made of hundreds of chemicals,
some of which are toxic. Others are valuable nutrients for
industry, which are wasted when the television ends up in a
landfill. The reuse of technical nutrients in closed-loop
industrial cycles is distinct from traditional recycling, because
it allows materials to retain their quality: high-quality plastic
computer cases would continually circulate as high-quality
computer cases, instead of being downcycled to make soundproof
barriers or flowerpots.
Customers would buy the service of such products, and when they
had finished with the products, or simply wanted to upgrade to a
newer version, the manufacturer would take back the old ones,
break them down, and use their complex materials in new products.
First Fruits: A Biological Nutrient
A FEW years ago we helped to conceive and create a compostable
upholstery fabric -- a biological nutrient. We were initially
asked by Design Tex to create an aesthetically unique fabric that
was also ecologically intelligent -- although the client did not
quite know at that point what this would mean. The challenge
helped to clarify, both for us and for the company we were working
with, the difference between superficial responses such as
recycling and reduction and the more significant changes required
by the Next Industrial Revolution.
For example, when the company first sought to meet our desire for
an environmentally safe fabric, it presented what it thought was a
wholesome option: cotton, which is natural, combined with PET
(polyethylene terephthalate) fibers from recycled beverage
bottles. Since the proposed hybrid could be described with two
important eco-buzzwords, "natural" and "recycled," it appeared to
be environmentally ideal. The materials were readily available,
market-tested, durable, and cheap. But when the project team
looked carefully at what the manifestations of such a hybrid might
be in the long run, we discovered some disturbing facts. When a
person sits in an office chair and shifts around, the fabric
beneath him or her abrades; tiny particles of it are inhaled or
swallowed by the user and other people nearby. PET was not
designed to be inhaled. Furthermore, PET would prevent the
proposed hybrid from going back into the soil safely, and the
cotton would prevent it from re-entering an industrial cycle. The
hybrid would still add junk to landfills, and it might also be
dangerous.
The team decided to design a fabric so safe that one could
literally eat it. The European textile mill chosen to produce the
fabric was quite "clean" environmentally, and yet it had an
interesting problem: although the mill's director had been
diligent about reducing levels of dangerous emissions, government
regulators had recently defined the trimmings of his fabric as
hazardous waste. We sought a different end for our trimmings:
mulch for the local garden club. When removed from the frame after
the chair's useful life and tossed onto the ground to mingle with
sun, water, and hungry microorganisms, both the fabric and its
trimmings would decompose naturally.
The team decided on a mixture of safe, pesticide-free plant and
animal fibers for the fabric (ramie and wool) and began working on
perhaps the most difficult aspect: the finishes, dyes, and other
processing chemicals. If the fabric was to go back into the soil
safely, it had to be free of mutagens, carcinogens, heavy metals,
endocrine disrupters, persistent toxic substances, and
bio-accumulative substances. Sixty chemical companies were
approached about joining the project, and all declined,
uncomfortable with the idea of exposing their chemistry to the
kind of scrutiny necessary. Finally one European company,
Ciba-Geigy, agreed to join.
With that company's help the project team considered more than
8,000 chemicals used in the textile industry and eliminated 7,962.
The fabric -- in fact, an entire line of fabrics -- was created
using only thirty-eight chemicals.
The director of the mill told a surprising story after the fabrics
were in production. When regulators came by to test the effluent,
they thought their instruments were broken. After testing the
influent as well, they realized that the equipment was fine -- the
water coming out of the factory was as clean as the water going
in. The manufacturing process itself was filtering the water. The
new design not only bypassed the traditional three-R responses to
environmental problems but also eliminated the need for
regulation.
In our Next Industrial Revolution, regulations can be seen as
signals of design failure. They burden industry, by involving
government in commerce and by interfering with the marketplace.
Manufacturers in countries that are less hindered by regulations,
and whose factories emit more toxic substances, have an economic
advantage: they can produce and sell things for less. If a factory
is not emitting dangerous substances and needs no regulation, and
can thus compete directly with unregulated factories in other
countries, that is good news environmentally, ethically, and
economically.
A Technical Nutrient
SOMEONE who has finished with a traditional carpet must pay to
have it removed. The energy, effort, and materials that went into
it are lost to the manufacturer; the carpet becomes little more
than a heap of potentially hazardous petrochemicals that must be
toted to a landfill. Meanwhile, raw materials must continually be
extracted to make new carpets.
The typical carpet consists of nylon embedded in fiberglass and
PVC. After its useful life a manufacturer can only downcycle it --
shave off some of the nylon for further use and melt the
leftovers. The world's largest commercial carpet company,
Interface, is adopting our technical-nutrient concept with a
carpet designed for complete recycling. When a customer wants to
replace it, the manufacturer simply takes back the technical
nutrient -- depending on the product, either part or all of the
carpet -- and returns a carpet in the customer's desired color,
style, and texture. The carpet company continues to own the
material but leases it and maintains it, providing customers with
the service of the carpet. Eventually the carpet will wear out
like any other, and the manufacturer will reuse its materials at
their original level of quality or a higher one.
The advantages of such a system, widely applied to many industrial
products, are twofold: no useless and potentially dangerous waste
is generated, as it might still be in eco-efficient systems, and
billions of dollars' worth of valuable materials are saved and
retained by the manufacturer.
Selling Intelligence, Not Poison
CURRENTLY, chemical companies warn farmers to be careful with
pesticides, and yet the companies benefit when more pesticides are
sold. In other words, the companies are unintentionally invested
in wastefulness and even in the mishandling of their products,
which can result in contamination of the soil, water, and air.
Imagine what would happen if a chemical company sold intelligence
instead of pesticides -- that is, if farmers or agro-businesses
paid pesticide manufacturers to protect their crops against loss
from pests instead of buying dangerous regulated chemicals to use
at their own discretion. It would in effect be buying crop
insurance. Farmers would be saying, "I'll pay you to deal with
boll weevils, and you do it as intelligently as you can." At the
same price per acre, everyone would still profit. The pesticide
purveyor would be invested in not using pesticide, to avoid
wasting materials. Furthermore, since the manufacturer would bear
responsibility for the hazardous materials, it would have
incentives to come up with less-dangerous ways to get rid of
pests. Farmers are not interested in handling dangerous chemicals;
they want to grow crops. Chemical companies do not want to
contaminate soil, water, and air; they want to make money.
Consider the unintended design legacy of the average shoe. With
each step of your shoe the sole releases tiny particles of
potentially harmful substances that may contaminate and reduce the
vitality of the soil. With the next rain these particles will wash
into the plants and soil along the road, adding another burden to
the environment.
Shoes could be redesigned so that the sole was a biological
nutrient. When it broke down under a pounding foot and interacted
with nature, it would nourish the biological metabolism instead of
poisoning it. Other parts of the shoe might be designed as
technical nutrients, to be returned to industrial cycles. Most
shoes -- in fact, most products of the current industrial system
-- are fairly primitive in their relationship to the natural
world. With the scientific and technical tools currently
available, this need not be the case.
Respect Diversity and Use the Sun
A LEADING goal of design in this century has been to achieve
universally applicable solutions. In the field of architecture the
International Style is a good example. As a result of the
widespread adoption of the International Style, architecture has
become uniform in many settings. That is, an office building can
look and work the same anywhere. Materials such as steel, cement,
and glass can be transported all over the world, eliminating
dependence on a region's particular energy and material flows.
With more energy forced into the heating and cooling system, the
same building can operate similarly in vastly different settings.
The second principle of the Next Industrial Revolution is "Respect
diversity." Designs will respect the regional, cultural, and
material uniqueness of a place. Wastes and emissions will
regenerate rather than deplete, and design will be flexible, to
allow for changes in the needs of people and communities. For
example, office buildings will be convertible into apartments,
instead of ending up as rubble in a construction landfill when the
market changes.
The third principle of the Next Industrial Revolution is "Use
solar energy." Human systems now rely on fossil fuels and
petrochemicals, and on incineration processes that often have
destructive side effects. Today even the most advanced building or
factory in the world is still a kind of steamship, polluting,
contaminating, and depleting the surrounding environment, and
relying on scarce amounts of natural light and fresh air. People
are essentially working in the dark, and they are often breathing
unhealthful air. Imagine, instead, a building as a kind of tree.
It would purify air, accrue solar income, produce more energy than
it consumes, create shade and habitat, enrich soil, and change
with the seasons. Oberlin College is currently working on a
building that is a good start: it is designed to make more energy
than it needs to operate and to purify its own wastewater.
Equity, Economy, Ecology
THE Next Industrial Revolution incorporates positive intentions
across a wide spectrum of human concerns. People within the
sustainability movement have found that three categories are
helpful in articulating these concerns: equity, economy, and
ecology.
* Equity refers to social justice. Does a design depreciate or
enrich people and communities? Shoe companies have been
blamed for exposing workers in factories overseas to
chemicals in amounts that exceed safe limits. Eco-efficiency
would reduce those amounts to meet certain standards;
eco-effectiveness would not use a potentially dangerous
chemical in the first place. What an advance for humankind it
would be if no factory worker anywhere worked in dangerous or
inhumane conditions.
* Economy refers to market viability. Does a product reflect
the needs of producers and consumers for affordable products?
Safe, intelligent designs should be affordable by and
accessible to a wide range of customers, and profitable to
the company that makes them, because commerce is the engine
of change.
* Ecology, of course, refers to environmental intelligence. Is
a material a biological nutrient or a technical nutrient?
Does it meet nature's design criteria: Waste equals food,
Respect diversity, and Use solar energy?
The Next Industrial Revolution can be framed as the following
assignment: Design an industrial system for the next century that
* introduces no hazardous materials into the air, water, or
soil
* measures prosperity by how much natural capital we can accrue
in productive ways
* measures productivity by how many people are gainfully and
meaningfully employed
* measures progress by how many buildings have no smokestacks
or dangerous effluents
* does not require regulations whose purpose is to stop us from
killing ourselves too quickly
* produces nothing that will require future generations to
maintain vigilance
* celebrates the abundance of biological and cultural diversity
and solar income
Albert Einstein wrote, "The world will not evolve past its current
state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the
situation." Many people believe that new industrial revolutions
are already taking place, with the rise of cybertechnology,
biotechnology, and nanotechnology. It is true that these are
powerful tools for change. But they are only tools --
hyperefficient engines for the steamship of the first Industrial
Revolution. Similarly, eco-efficiency is a valuable and laudable
tool, and a prelude to what should come next. But it, too, fails
to move us beyond the first revolution. It is time for designs
that are creative, abundant, prosperous, and intelligent from the
start. The model for the Next Industrial Revolution may well have
been right in front of us the whole time: a tree.
------------------------------------------------------------------
William McDonough is the Dean and Edison Professor of Architecture
at the University of Virginia. He and Michael Braungart are the
founders of McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, in
Charlottesville, Virginia.
The Atlantic Monthly
October 1998
The NEXT Industrial Revolution
Volume 282, No. 4; pages 82-92.
Copyright © 1998 The Atlantic Monthly Company.
All rights reserved.
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/nextIndusRev.html (hypertext)
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/nextIndusRev.txt (text only)
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/nextIndusRev.pdf (print-ready)